Recently in Judges Category

How Should Judges Act?

| 0 Comments | 0 TrackBacks
How do you think Judges should act while in the court room?

Watch these two clips from youtube and then answer these questions:
 
1. Did Judge Milian act out inappropriately?  If so, how?

2. If you were in the defendant, or the person she yelled at, how would you handle the situation?

3. How do you think Judges should act in court?
 
4. If you were Judge Milian, how would you handle the situation in court?

5.  Any other comments about these clips?

Watch the clips here:
Clip 1

Clip 2


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39726149/ns/us_news-security/

This article was published on msnbc.com by Associated Press on October 18, 2010.  The FBI were involved in this investigation (mainly because it has to do with threats of bombing).


"The trial featured 13 days of testimony by undercover informant Shahed Hussain, who met Cromitie at a mosque north of New York City. Prosecutors also relied on hundreds of hours of video and audiotape of the men discussing the scheme at the informant's home, handling fake weapons -- even praying together."

"Jurors deliberated for more than a week. A judge denied a request for a mistrial last week after a juror came across a document in an evidence binder that shouldn't have been there. The juror was dismissed."


What are the processes that the jury went through?

Do you think it was fair that the judge denied a request for a mistrial after a juror came across a document in an evidence binder?

What would you have done if you were that Judge and presented with that dilemma?

 



For my blog about juries, I decided to focus on the challenge rights that attorneys have when selecting a jury and specific cases related to those challenges.

voir dire: is the process of interviewing potential jurors in which judges and attorneys examine their backgrounds and possible biases.

Attorneys are allowed to challenge certain jurors when selecting a jury, which is simply a request to dismiss a potential juror.

peremptory challenge: an attorney can challenge a potential juror without providing a reason

challenge for cause: an attorney must provide a reason when challenging a potential juror, whether it be related to some bias towards the case, acquaintanceship with one of the parties, knowledge about the facts of the case, an obvious prejudice, or an inability to serve such as having a mental disorder. The judge then decides whether or not to dismiss the prospective juror.

I think it is a good idea to give attorneys these challenges.  I think both are necessary because it would not be fair for attorneys to eliminate an unlimited number of potential jurors for no reason.  The challenge for cause keeps attorneys in check and requires them to provide a reason to throw out a juror.  I think it is good that our courts allow attorneys to have these rights and that both exist to keep the attorneys fair and in check.   

 

Listed below are some cases related to jury selection...

Strauder v. West Virginia (1879): exclusion of potential jurors based solely on race is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause

Batson v. Kentucky (1986): peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race

J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B. (1994): peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their sex

I agree with the verdicts of these cases.  I do not think jurors should be thrown out based solely on their sex or race.    These cases give everyone an equal opportunity to serve as a juror, or at least through voir dire.




















http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9906EEDC143FE433A25752C0A9649C946097D6CF

(abstract of the article)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9906EEDC143FE433A25752C0A9649C946097D6CF

(the entire article)

The above article is from 1901, but I thought it was interesting to see the types of problems they were having in the legal system in the past. It discusses the opposition by a former judge concerning jury selection for trials in New Jersey. Former Judge Thomas Henry, challenged the jury selection during the Quarter Sessions. His challenge was overturned by Judge Skinner, so he took his challenge to the Court of Error and Appeals.

"Mr. Henry says the Constables about the court have friends whom they desire to have placed on the jury list, and the Sheriff, to be accomodating, uses the names of these friends. Some of these constables are attached to the Prosecutor's office..."

Mr. Henry argued that the chosen jurors were possibly inclined to favor the prosecution's side, because that's how they were chosen, and resulted in the money received for their services to society.

Mr. Henry asked the judge in the current case he was defending, if he would allow a jury to be selected from a list of the defense's friends, and of course the judge denied this request. Mr. Henry made a valid point that many other attorneys and judges began to agree with-the method for jury selection needed to be reformed.

This article made me absolutely sick!  A man from Sioux City was charged with punching his puppy to death.  The worst part was, he was found guilty of animal torture and was only sentenced to jail for year, which he will only spend a month of there, since he was credited for previous time spent there.  The judge wanted to keep in mind that he didn't kill an actual person, but how is it ok that an innocent puppy was murdered and in an awful way.   Since this man didn't have a history of domestic violence the judge was even more lenient.  Along with his Jail time Loggins is to pay a $625 fine, $300 to the Iowa Department of Corrections and he will have to reimburse the Woodbury County Jail $50 for each day he is there. He's also required to undergo substance abuse counseling and a psychological evaluation.

http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_e8246bac-1896-11df-b181-001cc4c002e0.html
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=BjUTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DfADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6825%2C8992713
 
While reading my assigned chapter for my Applied Psychology class, I found an interesting concept that was directly related to our class. The Pygmalion Effect (for those who don't know) is when people unintentionally influence others to perform a certain way because they expect them too. It's sort of like the self-fulfilling prophecy concept but only applied to a social situation. The studies on the Pygmalion Effect were conducted in regards to certain students performing better in the classroom because the teacher expected them to do so. Interestingly enough, this same concept can be applied to judges unintentionally influencing the juries decision based on their own perceived notion that the defendant is guilty. Studies found that if the judge believed that the defendant was guilty, he gave many non-verbal cues that would indicate that belief despite appearing unbiased. Also, despite jurors believing that they were unswayed by the judge's demeanor, studies found that juries would return with a guilty verdict more often when the judge believed the defendant was guilty.
 I found this topic extremely interesting and I'm currently in the process of researching more about it. From the information I gathered so far on the topic, there was a study conducted where a mock jury was shown a video tape of a trial then a separate video of the judge giving juror instructions. The separate video was of the juror instructions the judge had given from an entirely different trial (one which the judge had an unspoken belief of the defendant's guilt). The mock jury was then asked to render a verdict. The study found that jurors who viewed the instructions from a trial in which the judge believed the defendant was guilty came back with a guilty verdict between 43%-57% (cited from Applied Psychology New Frontiers and Rewarding Careers, chapter 5: Applying Psychological Research on Interpersonal Expectation and Covert Communication in Classrooms, Clinics, Corporations, and Courtrooms by Robert Rosenthal)!

Categories